• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Ivy Bridge Temperatures Could Be Linked To TIM Inside Integrated Heatspreader: Report

Nice work Jokester. Some proper old school modding there. :D

I actually want an IB now just so I can do that to it! :p
 
Jokester said:
Before:-

http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/555/ihson.jpg
Done at an ambient temperature of 17.5degC, peak temperature 79degC

After

http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/953/ihsoff.jpg
Done at an ambient temperature of 18.5degC, peak temperature 69degC

So an effective drop of 11degC removing the IHS, but I suspect I could possible get a bit more if I sort the mount out so that the core is taking all the pressure.
Click to expand...

Great job, conclusive proof that the tim Intel uses sucks. That's a fair bit voltage reguired for 4.6 :eek:
 
Jokester removed the IHS altogether I think, the difference when replacing the TIM and leaving the IHS on has been shown to be negligible.
 
Has anyone seen or heard of any attempts at solder-mounting the IHS on to the core?

If it worked so well for Sandybridge, why not for Ivy?

Edit: Or more simply, a shim to put around the core?
My thoughts would be that an IHS may be better because of the heat dispersion (happy to be proven wrong).
 
I was wondering that. Maybe there is a technical reason why the IHS can't be soldered to an IB core and that's why Intel have done this.
 
See my earlier post - there was a problem found in Intel's own research with the solder where it suffers stress fractures under repeated heat cycling.

Obviously a fracture = air gap, which is very BAD for heat dissipation. It's thought this is why the change was made.
 
I'd have to search browser history, I have a feeling it was overclock.net or xtreme though.

Edit: It certainly makes more sense than the conspiracy theories about Intel intentionally doing it to stop overclockers :rolleyes: Having said this it's all guesswork by everyone. Intel aren't telling and until they do no-one will know for sure why it was done.
 
Last edited:
RavenXXX2 said:
Great job, conclusive proof that the tim Intel uses sucks. That's a fair bit voltage reguired for 4.6 :eek:
Click to expand...
I just whacked the voltage up to get it as hot as possible as I found that as I wasn't on Win7 SP1 that I couldn't get the AVX instructions to run so it was running fairly cool on standard Prime.
 
Yamahahahahaha said:
Edit: Or more simply, a shim to put around the core?
My thoughts would be that an IHS may be better because of the heat dispersion (happy to be proven wrong).
Click to expand...
There's a discussion on this earlier on in the thread and the use of an IHS increases temperatures slightly as it's just another lump of material for heat to travel through.
 
So actually the problem is really the heatspreader rather than the TIM between it and the core. I mean it stands to reason if replacing the TIM with something higher end has little effect, yet removing the heatspreader altogether has a significant effect on temps.
 
I was considering to get a ivy bridge for my other build, but with all this stuff going on I think I would be better off sticking to Sandybridge... Not worth the extra 10C or so :P
 
neo-omega said:
So actually the problem is really the heatspreader rather than the TIM between it and the core. I mean it stands to reason if replacing the TIM with something higher end has little effect, yet removing the heatspreader altogether has a significant effect on temps.
Click to expand...

Its down to the TIM as well have read thru the posts.
 
Big big balls jokester, surprised you can sit down after that. Great work, Really given the whole IB a new talking point and dare I say it, hope. :)
 
well replacing the tim slashes temps from the tests ive seen, tho hard to know which to believe on the internet ><
maybe we will see modified chips for sale sometime if its true!
 
neo-omega said:
So actually the problem is really the heatspreader rather than the TIM between it and the core. I mean it stands to reason if replacing the TIM with something higher end has little effect, yet removing the heatspreader altogether has a significant effect on temps.
Click to expand...
I'm ilined to believe it's a mixture of both, broadly 50/50, with maybe TIM having a slightly bigger effect on temps. The other thing us, not all IHS will be mounted identically. There used to some A64 chips that would see much bigger drops than others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom